(Second Appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree, dated 30.06.1993, made in A.S.No.8 of 1990 on the file of District Judge, Pudukkottai.)

The plaintiff, who has filed the suit for specific performance, is the appellant. He filed the above suit against respondents 1, 2 (Defendants 1 and 3) and one M.Subramaniam (Died), defendant No.2 in the suit. Respondents 3 to 6 are the legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No.2. The trial court decreed the suit. The first appellate court reversed it and restricted the decree to a part of the suit property holding that the remaining parts being two shops had been purchased by respondents 2 and husband of Respondent No.3 on the ground that they are bonafide purchasers for value without notice. This second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law.

"Whether the Lower Appellate Court had erred in placing onus of proof on the plaintiff to establish that the defendants 2 and 3 are not bonafide purchasers for value without notice of the suit agreement".

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ex.A-1 sale agreement, which is sought to be enforced, was